The
record thus far is mixed. There are few outboard-attuned folks kicking
around these days who don't know about the problems OMC had with
its FICHT two-strokes, problems that no doubt contributed to its ultimate
collapse. In recent years Mercury has had some two-stroke hassles of its
own, mainly with 225-hp OptiMax engines. Sources blame a manufacturing
shift to foreign shores for parts. After initial difficulties, Yamaha,
on the other hand, appears to be purring along quite well with its HPDI
(High Pressure Direct Injection) powerhead, its own version of the environmentally
correct, two-stroke package.

But
consider this. Whether because of the complexity of modern two-stroke
technology or the high level of precision required to manufacture it,
the Japanese have chosen to pour whopping amounts of R&D into developing
the perfect four-stroke outboard. Does this mean that highly sophisticated,
clean-burning, fuel-injected, modern two-strokers are just too complicated
and breakdown-prone to survive? Does it mean that the technology behind
the reliable 200-hp OptiMax on my own boat is somehow flawed, even doomed
to ignominious extinction?

I really
don't think so--by all accounts, Mercury and Yamaha alike remain
committed to the modern two-stroke, primarily because of its acceleration
edge and other performance advantages. Moreover, beyond all the doom-saying
about the modern two-cycle outboard, there's another way to look
at the rumored technology transfer, a way I alluded to in this column
last July. The column was based on a trip I took to Holland, during which
I visited a consortium of builders, designers, engineers, and manufacturers
who, for economic, logistical, and other reasons, openly and routinely
swap and share R&D. I argued at the time, Why not import the practice
to the States? It works like gangbusters for the Dutch!

Of course,
the idea of sharing technology with competitors is not completely new
here in America. Automakers have been doing it for decades, and in a limited
way, so have American marine engine manufacturers. Indeed, Yamaha and
Mercury cooperated to develop some smaller Mariner outboards more than
30 years ago. But the scale of this latest venture surpasses anything
that's gone before. And its potential benefits, as well as the benefits
that may come from others like it in the future, are almost sure to be
good for consumers, for three solid reasons.

First,
speedier development and dissemination of new marine technology is likely
to result via the creation of additional sales and marketing channels.
By doing a deal on four-stroke powerheads, Yamaha and Mercury will immediately
boost the number of outlets where customers can buy the technology and
have it serviced. Arguably, such a move will radically open up or "grease
the rails" of product distribution.

Second,
by effectively reducing or more evenly spreading around R&D costs,
both Yamaha and Mercury may be able to cut their retail prices. Additionally,
there's a chance that reduced R&D in one area may free up money
for R&D in others. To be more specific, let's say Mercury is
able to develop refinements to Yamaha's technology once it gets
ahold of it--the company may then conceivably share these refinements
with Yamaha or even other manufacturers. Which is good for everybody!

Third,
if Yamaha and Mercury do a deal, it's likely that the buying public
will have way more choices at the retail level. Consider a customer who
lives in a Mercury-dominated geographical area--put Yamaha powerheads
under the black cowlings in the showroom he's been frequenting for
years, and he'll be able to buy Yamaha technology and service in
some shape or form for the first time ever, locally. Also, if Yamaha indeed
hands off its four-stroke powerhead to Mercury, customers who are looking
to buy a particular boat that's normally sold with just one brand
of engine will be readily able to opt for the other.